coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
9.  On 5 June 1995 police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the İstanbul Security Directorate arrested the applicant, who was a student at the time, on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK.
10.  On 6 June 1995 the head of the anti-terrorist branch of the İstanbul Security Directorate wrote a letter to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court requesting permission for an extension of the applicant's detention in police custody until 12 June 1995. On the same day the Public Prosecutor no. 23783 granted the extension requested.
11.  On 12 June 1995 the Public Prosecutor no. 16429 at the İstanbul State Security Court questioned the applicant in relation to his actions within the PKK and submitted a petition to the İstanbul State Security Court requesting an order for the applicant's detention on remand.
12.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the İstanbul State Security Court which ordered his detention on remand.
13.  On 23 August 1995 the Chief Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the İstanbul State Security Court charging the applicant with membership of the PKK. The charges were brought under Article 168 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713 as well as Article 19 § 2 of Law no. 2918 (Traffic Act).
14.  On 9 August 1996 the applicant was released pending trial.
15.  On 18 November 1998 the applicant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in accordance with Article 168 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code.
9.  On 28 July 1996 police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the İzmir Security Directorate arrested the applicants on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PRK-Rızgari.
10.  On 5 August 1996 the İzmir State Security Court ordered the applicants' detention on remand.
11.  On 28 August 1996 the Chief Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the İzmir State Security Court charging the applicants with membership of the PRK-Rızgari and undertaking actions against the indivisible integrity of the state. The charges were brought under Articles 125 and 168 of the Criminal Code.
12.  In a judgment dated 14 August 1997 the İzmir State Security Court acquitted Ms Melahat Filiz of the charges, holding that there was insufficient evidence to convict her. The court found Mr Nadir Kalkan guilty of the offences under Articles 125 and 168 and sentenced him to capital punishment.
13.  On 19 September 1997 Mr Kalkan lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation. The applicant did not submit any information concerning the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him.
7.  The applicant lives in Zaussenberg in Lower Austria.
8.  In 1983 agricultural land consolidation proceedings, involving the property of the applicant's mother, were instituted by the Lower Austria District Agricultural Authority. On 9 September 1983 the authority ordered the provisional transfer of compensatory parcels.
9.  On 7 October 1987 the District Agricultural Authority issued the consolidation scheme, against which the applicant's mother appealed.
10.  On 5 June 1991 the Supreme Land Reform Board partly allowed the appeal lodged by the applicant's mother and awarded her compensation. This decision was quashed by the Administrative Court on 19 September 1994.
11.  On 20 February 1995 the applicant filed a declaration that he wanted to pursue the proceedings as his mother's legal successor.
12.  After a new decision by the Supreme Land Reform Board, reassessing the compensation issue had been quashed by the Administrative Court on 29 October 1996 it gave a further decision on 7 May 1997 granting a higher amount of compensation.
13.  On 18 February 1999 the Administrative Court upheld this decision.
8.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Biała Podlaska, Poland.
9.  On 2 January 1996 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed burglary. On 4 January 1996 he was brought before U. Ś.-O., a district prosecutor from the Biała Podlaska District Prosecutor's Office (Prokuratura Rejonowa), charged with two counts of burglary and detained on remand in view of the reasonable risk that he might obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings.
10.  On 5 January 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Biała Podlaska District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), maintaining that his detention was unlawful because the detention order had been made by the prosecutor, who did not have the attributes of a “judge” required under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
The court deemed the complaint to be an appeal against the detention order of 4 January 1996. It examined it as such and dismissed it on 18 January 1996. The court considered that the applicant should be detained because there was a reasonable risk that he might obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings.
11.  Subsequently, in January and February 1996, the applicant complained to the Biała Podlaska District Prosecutor and the Ombudsman (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich) that, after having been arrested, he had not been brought before a judge but before the prosecutor, who had not been authorised by law to exercise judicial power.
12.  On 21 February 1996 the Biała Podlaska District Prosecutor replied to that complaint, stating that, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as they stood at the material time, the prosecutor had a power to detain him on remand; however, under the amendments to Polish criminal legislation, which were to enter into force on 4 August 1996, only the courts of law could impose detention on remand.
13.  On 27 March 1996 the Biała Podlaska District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Biała Podlaska District Court.
14.  On 23 June 1996 the court gave judgment and convicted the applicant of dealing with stolen goods.
15.  On 17 July 1996 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) that, after having been arrested, he had not been brought before a judge but before the Biała Podlaska District Prosecutor.
16.  On 30 July 1996 the Case-law Department of the Supreme Court replied to the applicant's complaint in the following way:
“ ... Under Article 210 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court imposes preventive measures after a bill of indictment has been lodged with that court; beforehand - a prosecutor [imposes such measures].  It thus follows that your doubts as to the imposition of detention [in your case] are unreasonable.
Article 5 § 5 of the Convention clearly states that everyone detained shall be brought promptly before a judge – or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.  Under [the relevant] legislation, a prosecutor is such an officer. ...”
6.  The first and the second applicant were born in 1927 and 1950 respectively. The third and the fourth applicant were born in 1954. The first applicant lives in Józefów and her three daughters in Warsaw, Poland.
7.  From 1939 to 1944, Jan Hałka, the first applicant's husband, was a member of the Polish resistance troops of the underground Home Army (Armia Krajowa). In 1944 he was arrested by the NKVD and the Polish political police and imprisoned in a labour camp in Siberia. He was kept in Borowice (former USSR) from November 1944 to February 1946. He died on 17 November 1986.
8.  On 8 December 1994 the applicants filed an application with the Warsaw Regional Court for compensation under section 8 § 2(a) of the Law of 23 February 1991 on annulment of convictions whereby persons were persecuted for their activities aimed at achieving independence for Poland (Ustawa o uznaniu za nieważne orzeczeń wydanych wobec osób represjonowanych za działalność na rzecz niepodległego buty Państwa Polskiego)  (“the 1991 Act”).
9.  In 1996 the first applicant personally went to the court and asked a judge to fix a date for a hearing as soon as possible. She submitted that she was an elderly person and that the court should therefore give priority to her case.
10.  In 1998 she again went in person to the Warsaw Regional Court and asked the judge to set a date for a hearing as soon as possible.
11.  On 11 May 2000 she sent a letter to the court, asking for a hearing date to be set and for information on the proceedings. She maintained that her previous applications for the proceedings to be accelerated had been to no avail and that the period of total inactivity on the part of that court had exceeded five years.
12.  On 1 October 2000 she complained to the Minister of Justice about the lack of progress in the proceedings.
13.  On 4 December 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing in the applicants' case. On the same date the court gave judgment and awarded the first applicant and her three daughters compensation in the amount of 8,075 Polish zlotys (PLN) each. Since no party appealed within the statutory time-limit of seven days, the first-instance decision became final on 12 December 2000.
14.  On 19 March 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court informed the first and the third applicant that they could collect the sums awarded from the Financial Department of the Warsaw Regional Court on 25 March 2002. They did so. It appears from the material produced by the applicants that the second and the fourth applicant have not yet received their share of the compensation awarded.
8.  On an unspecified date, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for tax offences.
9.  In an order of 18 September 1991, the Benevento investigating judge committed the applicant for trial, commencing on 16 December 1991 before the Benevento District Court. On 21 September 1991, this order was served on the applicant, who was thus informed of the charges brought against him.
10.  The first hearing was adjourned because the applicant was ill. On 8 June 1992, at the parties' request, the District Court, acting in accordance with Article 2 § 3 of Presidential Decree n° 23 of  20 January 1992, decided to suspend the proceedings awaiting the information from the Benevento Revenue (Ufficio Finanziario delle Imposte dirette) on the applicant's integration into the taxpayers' list. On 29 October 1997, the District Court requested the Benevento Revenue to produce the information at issue. The information was given on 20 December 1997.
11.  On 22 January 1998, the case was adjourned because on that day the lawyers of the Benevento Bar Association were on strike.
12.  On 16 April 1998, the parties presented their final pleadings. The applicant and the Public Prosecutor requested the District Court to declare that the offences were time-barred.
13.  By a judgment of 16 April 1998, filed with the registry on 23 April 1998, the District Court held that the charges had become time-barred in July 1997.
8.  On 4 May 1988 the Genoa Public Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that criminal proceedings concerning his public duties (the applicant was a civil servant in the Ministry of Public Works) had been instituted against him. These proceedings were subsequently transferred to the Milan Public Prosecutor's Office, and on 7 September 1988 the Milan investigating judge informed the applicant that a charge of corruption was pending against him.
9.  On 26 May 1989 the applicant was heard by the Milan investigating judge.
10.  On 31 May 1991 the applicant and forty-four other persons were committed for trial before the Milan District Court. The first hearing, initially scheduled for 27 January 1993, took place on 12 January 1994.
11.  In a judgement of 31 March 1994, the District Court, following the plea bargain procedure (“applicazione della pena su richiesta delle parti”) sentenced the applicant to one year and four months' imprisonment. This decision was filed with the registry only on 19 March 1997. It became final on 6 July 1997.
12.  In the meantime, by an order of 31 July 1995, the Ministry of Public Works dismissed the applicant from his post as a consequence of his criminal conviction.
8.  On 9 December 1985 the applicant, accused of theft and possession of drugs, was arrested and placed in detention on remand. He was released on 21 January 1986.
9.  In an order of 27 May 1986, the Ancona investigating judge committed the applicant and fifty-eight other persons for trial before the Ancona District Court.
10.  On 2 September 1986 the President of the Ancona District Court scheduled the date of the first hearing for 12 November 1986.
11.  In a judgment of 5 March 1987, filed with the registry on 20 March 1987, the District Court acquitted the applicant for lack of evidence (“insufficienza di prove”). A number of his co-accused were sentenced to heavy penalties.
12.  The applicant, together with fourteen other accused, lodged an appeal with the Ancona Court of Appeal in order to obtain a more favourable acquittal formula.
13.  On 17 February 1988 the case-file was forwarded to the Court of Appeal.
14.  The trial hearing, initially scheduled for 16 April 1996, was adjourned until 13 December 1996.
15.  In a judgment of the same day, filed with the registry on 10 January 1997, the Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant. This decision became final on 2 February 1997.
7.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in Gumpoldskirchen (Austria).
8.  As a client had allegedly not paid enough for construction work accomplished for him, the applicant filed an action for unjustified enrichment with the Vienna Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) on 30 May 1980.
9.  On 21 November 1994 the Regional Court, after having held numerous hearings, dismissed the applicant's action.
10.  On 23 May 1995 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant's appeal.
11.  On 25 October 1995 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) rejected the applicant's further appeal on points of law.
8.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Tunceli.
9.  On 5 and 6 June 1992 the applicant participated in a meeting organised by the Tunceli Human Rights Association. At this meeting he made a speech concerning the problems of the Kurdish people and expressed his opinions on possible solutions.
10.  On 3 May 1993 the Public Prosecutor attached to the Kayseri State Security Court (“the State Security Court”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant together with three other persons who had participated in the meeting. In his indictment, the public prosecutor accused the applicant, under Article 8 § 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1991, of disseminating propaganda against the indivisibility of the State.
11.  On 26 August 1993 the State Security Court found the applicant guilty of an offence under Article 8 § 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and a fine of 50,000,000 Turkish Liras (TRL). In its decision the court held that the applicant, along with three other persons, had put forward the idea of a separate people contrary to the concept of nation adopted in the Constitution. The court considered that the applicant and the three other accused, in their speeches and poems, had claimed that the Kurdish people were fighting against the Republic of Turkey for their independence and that their struggle should be supported. Referring to all the speeches made by the accused, the court held that sentences such as “the Kurdish people are exercising the right of rebellion in their fight for emancipation from captivity”, “the Kurds should be given the right to determine their future”; “the Kurdish people are engaged in a great struggle, fighting for socialism and national independence” amounted to propaganda against the indivisibility of the State. The court further referred to the slogans shouted by the audience during the speeches, such as “Let Kurdistan walk” and “Deho Apo” (the PKK leader) and to the presence of the symbolic colours of the Kurdish people, i.e. red, green and yellow in the meeting hall's decorations. Finally, the court found that the accused had carried out the proscribed propaganda at a time and place at which the threat to the unity of the State and the Nation was particularly acute.
12.  The applicant appealed against this judgment.
13.  On 6 May 1994 the Court of Cassation upheld the State Security Court's judgment.
14.  Following the amendments made by Law no. 4126 of 27 October 1995 to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the State Security Court ex officio re-examined the applicant's case.
15.  On 28 November 1998 the State Security Court confirmed the applicant's conviction, and ultimately reduced the sentence to one year's imprisonment and a fine of 50,000,000 TRL.
7.  On 21 March 1985, the applicant applied to the Vienna Arbitration Board (Schlichtungsstelle) for an increase in the rent payable by his tenants to enable repairs to the house. The increase was granted on 25 June 1985.
8.  On 28 June 1985, several tenants filed an appeal against this decision with the Hernals District Court (Bezirksgericht). The court held hearings on 25 October 1985, 24 January and 28 February 1986. On 27 May 1986, the court determined the classification of the respective apartments for the purposes of rent calculation under the Rent Act. It dismissed one tenant's request to render an interlocutory decision on a preliminary issue as it could be joined to the merits. On 18 November 1987, the Vienna Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) dismissed that tenant's appeal concerning an interlocutory decision.
9.  The District Court held a further hearing on 26 August 1988. It appointed an expert on 8 September and, after this expert had declared bias, appointed another expert on 5 October 1988. On 2 March 1989, following two extensions of the time-limit set for this purpose, the applicant submitted documents required by the court. On 16 May 1989 the expert submitted his opinion. Thereupon, further hearings were held on 5 October 1989, 23 January, 18 May and 18 October 1990 and 6 February 1991. A hearing which had been scheduled for 16 May 1991 had to be postponed to 9 August 1991 as the court had failed to serve the applicant's submissions on the other parties in time. At the hearing of 9 August 1991 the judge closed the taking of evidence.
10.  On 16 March 1992, the proceedings were resumed for the taking of further evidence and hearings were held on 8 July and 18 December 1992, and on 20 April 1993 when the proceedings were adjourned for delivery of a written judgment. The applicant was ordered to submit further documents which he did on 11 May 1993.
11.  Throughout the District Court proceedings the judge responsible for dealing with the case changed four times. The parties made numerous requests for the taking of evidence. One tenant in particular filed numerous objections against the minutes of the hearings.
12.  On 29 June 1994, the applicant filed an application under section 91 of the Courts Act (Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz) for a time-limit to be fixed for the delivery of the written judgment. On 20 October 1994, the Vienna Regional Civil Court granted this application and set a time-limit of six weeks.
13.  On 12 June 1995, the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim for a rent increase. The applicant's appeal against the decision of 1 July 1995 was dismissed by the Vienna Regional Civil Court on 12 December 1995.
14.  On 16 April 1996, the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law, noting that the conditions of section 528 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not met. According to this provision, an appeal on points of law against the decision of an appellate court is only admissible if it raises a legal issue of particular importance for the uniformity, certainty, or further development of the law. The judgment was served on 24 May 1996.
7.  The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to A.R.
8.  In a registered letter of 18 April 1991, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 27 September 1991, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 28 October 1991, which was made enforceable on 8 November 1991, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
11.  On 25 January 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
12.  On 3 March 1993, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 March 1993.
13.  On 30 July 1993, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for the third applicant.
14.  Between 30 March 1993 and 23 September 1999, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 28 March 1997, the second applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son.
16.  On 2 August 1999, the tenant requested the Florence Magistrate (according to art. 6 L. 431/98) to set a fresh date for the enforcement of the order.
17.  On 16 October 2000, the Florence Magistrate set the enforcement of the order for 15 May 2002.
8.  On 27 April 1995, the applicant was arrested and charged on two counts with conspiracy to supply Class A and Class B drugs respectively. On 27 January 1997, he and his co-defendants (Kevin Douglas, Paul Anthony Easingwood, Keith Gleeson and Andrew David Dalton) pleaded guilty to the charges after the trial judge ruled disputed evidence admissible.
9.  The evidence at issue resulted from a covert surveillance operation involving observation and recording of conversations in the home of Kevin Douglas allegedly from October 1994 until January 1995 and in April 1995. According to the applicant, the authority for such surveillance had been sought and granted on the purported grounds that the drug operation conducted by the defendants was of such sophistication that conventional evidence gathering techniques were fruitless. He claimed that it was not the Chief Constable who authorised the warrant, but rather the Chief Superintendent.
10.  The defendants challenged the admissibility of the evidence on grounds of improper compliance with the Home Office Guidelines and argued that the judge should exercise his discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”) to exclude the recordings. A voir dire regarding the assertions was conducted. The taped conversations constituted the sole evidence against the applicant.
11.  Upon the trial judge's ruling that the evidence was admissible, the defendants pleaded guilty to the relevant charges on the indictment.
12.  On 6 February 1997, the applicant was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.
13.  The applicant applied for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence out of time. On 28 January 1999, the applicant's application to seek leave to appeal against conviction and sentence out of time was refused by Mr Justice Hooper and Lord Justice Rose.